Christians: What in this Book do you Disagree With?

[DeepShadow]

In the interests of clearing the air with fellow Christians as to what we agree and disagree on, I thought I'd offer the following bone of debate: The LDS Gospel Principles Manual.

Here it is, the basic manual that we teach lessons from every Sunday. It's not doctrine per se, but it contains doctrine, and it's what we actually teach, so those pesky Mormons won't be able to say, "Well, I've never heard that in my 23 years attending church!"

So have at it.

 

[Francine]

Baptism by immersion by a person having the proper authority is the only acceptable way of being baptized.

Wrong.

Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.

The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: Whoops, I got tricked into breaking the rules. This part of the forum is for LDS, not Catholics. That's all you get, Deep Shadow.

 

[astarath]

The spirit as an entity decrees and designs the blessing of the spirit and as such one can become baptized without the use of water nor by a preordained member of the body.

 

[DeepShadow]

Wrong.

Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.

The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation

Thank you! I was aware that the LDS and Catholics had different baptisms, but this was educational.

Anything else?

 

[astarath]

I have always had an issue with anyone having the keys to the kingdom with the exception of Christ. God would never choose a single man with which to act but rather he acts through the body as a whole.

 

[Francine]

Thank you! I was aware that the LDS and Catholics had different baptisms, but this was educational.

Anything else?

You have to get a moderator to move this thread to the general debate section. I'm not getting anymore talking-tos.

 

[DeepShadow]

The spirit as an entity decrees and designs the blessing of the spirit and as such one can become baptized without the use of water nor by a preordained member of the body.

Very good. I've heard of this concept before, but never stated so well.

Anything else? I'm interested in other ideas regarding baptism, but I'd be shocked if these were the only issues to deal with here.

BTW, I appreciate people being so up front. I asked what you disagreed with, and I'm ready to hear it.

 

[astarath]

As an ebionite this concept of a ruler of the "church" is offensive as the gospel stands by Christ's perfection and need not be formed or guided by another. The other obvious difference as an ebionite would be the dismissal of Joseph Smith's writings as God breathed!

 

[DeepShadow]

You have to get a moderator to move this thread to the general debate section. I'm not getting anymore talking-tos.

It's a debate section, but I'm trying to keep it between Christian denominations. I'd expect an atheist or a Hindu would disagree with the entire book.

 

[DeepShadow]

As an ebionite this concept of a ruler of the "church" is offensive as the gospel stands by Christ's perfection and need not be formed or guided by another. The other obvious difference as an ebionite would be the dismissal of Joseph Smith's writings as God breathed!

Naturally. I need to find out more about Ebionites!

So in your church, do you have anyone who plays the role of ancient prophets?

 

[Fluffy]

Just a quick mod note: This is a same-faith debate section so anyone who is of the specified group (and nobody else) may debate here. In this case the group is Christianity so if you identify as a Christian then you are welcome to post here.

 

[astarath]

Plays the role? My church is of a personal spiritual nature in which I attempt to adhere as clsoely as possible to the tenets of the OT but the Law must be extrapolated by Christ's teachings on the mount!

 

[DeepShadow]

So do Ebionites believe in prophets at all?

...never mind, I've started a new thread.

Is there anything else that jumps out at you?

 

[tomspug]

Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see D&C 93:21), so he is literally our elder brother (see Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 26).

I understand your interpretation of the Bible with respect to this, but this is not a belief held in any other Christian denomination, especially the part about 'heavenly parents', which implies that God the Father has wives and the rejection of the Trinity with respect to Christ. This is a belief that is held by some religions, but not Christianity in general.

Since we could not progress further in heaven, our Heavenly Father called a Grand Council to present his plan for our progression (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 348, 349, 365). We learned that if we followed his plan, we would become like him.

The notion that man existed before creation is also non-Biblical and therefore rejected by most Christians. It wasn't included in Genesis. Also, the notion of man destined to become LIKE GOD is also non-Biblical. We are taught to strive to be like him, but we as humans can only become like him to the best of our abilities. Besides, wasn't the beginning of sin (according to Christian tradition) Eve eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil because she had been told by the serpent that she would become like god? Doesn't that make man's desire to become like God the root of all evil?

 

[Sola'lor]

The notion that man existed before creation is also non-Biblical and therefore rejected by most Christians.

Actuall there a quite a few scriptures that refer to it. I'll have to get them for you.

It wasn't included in Genesis. Also, the notion of man destined to become LIKE GOD is also non-Biblical. We are taught to strive to be like him, but we as humans can only become like him to the best of our abilities. Besides, wasn't the beginning of sin (according to Christian tradition) Eve eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil because she had been told by the serpent that she would become like god? Doesn't that make man's desire to become like God the root of all evil?

We had a discussion about this just this last sunday. Yes, Satan decieved Eve by telling her she would become like God. We came to the conclusion that the only way what Satan said could be a temptation is if Eve wanted to be like God. This doesn't mean the desire to be like God is evil. It mean Satan used a truthful statement to decieve. Satan was telling the truth when he said She would become like God by knowing good and evil. But He used it for a bad purpose. This is what satan often does he will tell us something that one the surface seems like a good thing but it is for a bad purpose.

 

[tomspug]

Actuall there a quite a few scriptures that refer to it. I'll have to get them for you.

I understand what the LDS view is, but I know that any scriptures you find will be 'interprative' in nature. My point was that it is not in the creation story in Genesis, and it is a belief that is not held by any OTHER Christian denomination. This you cannot deny.

We had a discussion about this just this last sunday. Yes, Satan decieved Eve by telling her she would become like God. We came to the conclusion that the only way what Satan said could be a temptation is if Eve wanted to be like God. This doesn't mean the desire to be like God is evil. It mean Satan used a truthful statement to decieve. Satan was telling the truth when he said She would become like God by knowing good and evil. But He used it for a bad purpose. This is what satan often does he will tell us something that one the surface seems like a good thing but it is for a bad purpose.

Right, so deception is good, and God WANTED man to disobey him by setting the whole thing up ahead of time in celestial heaven? Eve DIDN'T become like God. They're reward was death. They had eternal life with God and lost it. I mean, what was the POINT of Eden in the first place according to LDS? Why was perfect creation supposed to be ruined by sin?

 

[Sola'lor]

I understand what the LDS view is, but I know that any scriptures you find will be 'interprative' in nature. My point was that it is not in the creation story in Genesis, and it is a belief that is not held by any OTHER Christian denomination. This you cannot deny.

Yes you are correct there. Pretty much any scripture is interpretive in nature.

Right, so deception is good, and God WANTED man to disobey him by setting the whole thing up ahead of time in celestial heaven? Eve DIDN'T become like God. They're reward was death. They had eternal life with God and lost it. I mean, what was the POINT of Eden in the first place according to LDS? Why was perfect creation supposed to be ruined by sin?

Umm. No deception is bad. The whole point if the plan is so that everybody can be tested and attain salvation. Adam and Eve couldn't have children while they were in the garden. There bodies were not capable of having children. So in order for God's plan to be fulfilled they needed to become mortal so the rest of us could come into the world. God wouldn't create Adam and Eve in a mortal state, so they needed to become mortal through some other way. While Satan thought he was thwarting God's plan, he was actually helping.

 

[DeepShadow]

The notion that man existed before creation is also non-Biblical and therefore rejected by most Christians. It wasn't included in Genesis. Also, the notion of man destined to become LIKE GOD is also non-Biblical. We are taught to strive to be like him, but we as humans can only become like him to the best of our abilities. Besides, wasn't the beginning of sin (according to Christian tradition) Eve eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil because she had been told by the serpent that she would become like god? Doesn't that make man's desire to become like God the root of all evil?

Not necessarily. Satan could very well have been offering a sinful shortcut to an otherwise good goal. Like, world peace isn't a bad goal, but doing it through mind control or other fascist methods is a shortcut that corrupts the goal.

 

[tomspug]

... This is all very complicated. Why is NONE of this actually in Genesis?

It makes much more sense to me that the desire to be like God is the root of all evil. You can see this reflected in other stories throughout the Bible.

In the Tower of Babel, man was punished for trying to 'reach' God. Nebuchadnezzar was punished for trying to make others worship him like a god. All idolatry was forbidden, which includes worship of kings and prominent figures. Satan himself was cast out of heaven for trying to become God.

Look at the Ten Commandments. Each sin represents an aspect of human nature that desires control and dominance: coveting possessions and wives for yourself, putting yourself above your parents, putting yourself above the law... All of these things reflect a basic human desire to be greater than others, to become god-like. This is the kind of drive that creates totalitarianism, religion-based governments, hatred of other countries or races.

The reason the Genesis story makes so much sense ON ITS OWN is because it identifies all the evil aspects of humanity as one thing: disobedience of God. What was the temptation that drove that solitary disobedience, the ONLY THING that God told them not to do? They were told they would become like God.

 

[tomspug]

Not necessarily. Satan could very well have been offering a sinful shortcut to an otherwise good goal. Like, world peace isn't a bad goal, but doing it through mind control or other fascist methods is a shortcut that corrupts the goal.

Oh, there is so much wrong with this. So Hitler, in other words, had the right idea but went about it the wrong way? Or was he wrong from the beginning when he wanted to create a 'new' world? Every totalitarian government has had the 'new idea' that they can eliminate all the world's problems, not by love, but through power. This is why religion-based governments are horrible.

Satan convinced Adam and Eve to sin, to disobey God. Your argument is that, somehow, this was a good thing. The only way you can argue this is to argue that the desire to become like God is actually 'good'. In my view, that seems like you're arguing that sin is good, that disobedience of God is good.